Sizing Up the Future

[robert blu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I desire to thank Lars and the other contributors for this interesting discussion. Marketing, electronic and photo technology mixed together give points to think about.

Personally I would be happy with a camera sized between my m7 and the x1, with simple controls, viewfinder, and an aps.c (or H) sensor (I very rarely print bigger than A3+). So long wide angle lenses are available at affordable prize. If to buy an equivalent to 35/2 I have to buy a 24/1,4 ...it becomes difficult.

Thanks again to all of you for this discussion.

robert

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

Hej, Lasse,

 

So how do you see the relationship of the M10 — call it the "Photokina M" — to the M-Monochrom? I am quite taken with the image quality that may be possible with the latter, but still agonizing over the 230,000 dot LCD, sluggishness and issues with SD cards, etc.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface

 

Well that is of course something of a mystery. If Leica would have foreseen a long-term continuous production of the MM, then it would of course have been a peculiar strategy to launch it just a few months before the presentation of a camera based on entirely different, more modern electronics. As it is now, the differences between the MM and the M9, apart from the sensor, is mainly in the firmware. Producing the MM in parallel with a more advanced and incompatible model would be irrational.

 

So my take is that only a short, limited batch of MM cameras is planned. When these are delivered, there will be a pause – and then, maybe in the autumn of 2013, there might be a MM2 based on what I have tentatively called the 'MX', depending on the sales of the MM. The 'MX' will certainly have faster electronics and a larger screen. The card question is another matter. This is a tango that it takes two to dance.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[lars_bergquist]

Price. I remember when calculators came out that they were horribly expensive but even then there were predictions that one day they would become very cheap, and be available in bubble packs, as mass production of their electronics became possible. [ ... ]

 

Price will always be a factor. I remember when we were told that electricity generated by atomic energy would be so cheap that the producers wouldn't bother to charge for it. Producing a larger sensor will always be significantly more expensive because the number of faults will rise with the increased area, and thus the reject rate.

 

An important part of a camera's total bulk is the lenses. The S2 is not really larger than a top-tier pro 24x36mm DSLR. The lenses however are humonguous. The M lenses we have now are masterpieces of compact optical design. Add AF mounts (motors, movement sensors, possibly automatic aperture mechanisms) and what have you? Something like a Canon lens. The advantage of smaller sensors is that you can build more compact lenses, tails that do not wag the dog.

 

What is called for is a camera that is no larger than a LTM Leica, and with lenses to fit. That is possible only with a smaller sensor. The reason why I don't believe in a 4/5 Leica again, is not only technical but also that we have been expressly told by Gnomes in High Places that a Leica EVIL camera would have "at least" an APS-C sensor.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[Guest malland]

I think that the APS-C/APS-H scenario makes a lot of sense as long it has its own lenses and as long as Leica can differentiate such a camera enough from the offerings of the other companies. Given the image quality possible with sensors of this size, the only reason that I see for a "full size" sensor is to be able to use Leica-M lenses as they were designed, to be able to have the full character of the look these lenses give, vignetting and somewhat less sharpness in the corners.But once Leica has lenses for the APS-C/APS-H sensor, then there is no need for 24x36mm a sensor, except, that is, for legacy M-lendes, again.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

They need to. The M line is running into diminishing returns. After adding a CMos with its inevitavble liveview and quite likely "Visoflex IV" type of accessory EVF to pacify the remaining R crowd, and the Monochrome as ultimate niche-within-niche camera there remains but one thing for an M11 - add autofocus capability to the rangefinder concept. Hardly an attractive prospect and effectively the end of the line. So Leica will need a new bread-and-butter camera concept in some years time.

 

I don't agree with this, actually, at all.

 

First, a smaller frame M-compatible system seems just silly to me, and while I appreciate the niceties of being able to focus a Leica 50 1.4 R Summilux on an EVF, let alone an M Noctilux, I don't want to crop it 50%--it's a case of "why use that lens?" syndrome...).

 

An M autofocus? No thanks.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Lars's smaller system isn't a good idea (though I hate using cropped sensors mostly); only that there is lots of room for a manual focus M to grow from the M9, and it could still be the "Leica format" for photographers, not collectors.

 

If I was in charge of M9 + development, these would be my priorities for making it a working pro's dream:

 

• rework the optical RF mechanism. It's old, and while I know everyone claims it would be impossible to rework, well, that's a place to start for innovation. From a user's point of view it could be a lot better; and you have to believe that these days it could be made with less than 5million interlocking parts It could perhaps be modernized in a ton of different ways. And then there's the viewfinder itself: electronic framelines would be one thing and first step in projection systems, and in an M10 you could actually show shutter speed as well as exposure. M11+? Augmented reality time, folks, still in a kick-ass optical VF, and you can turn off all the electronics if you want. The goal would be to produce a hybrid optical system so much better than an EVF that it leaves them in the dust.
  
• let's have field calibration of different lenses available, simply, with different settings for each lens where possible.
  
• Now, let's work the signal processing path. There simply should be no lag between pushing the shutter and the camera responding. Every time. No matter how fast or slow you push it.
  
• it should be more weather resistant. I don't know about submersable, or even sealed, but better.
  
• It should have the best screen available.
  
• Looking at sensor technology in new ways might be fruitful, and not just for noise and ISO and such. I would like to see where a Foveon style approach could take things. I want better colour (which to me also gets me better bw) and smoother colour, under all light conditions, not many more pixels.
  
• The current M could be redesigned for physical attributes; create a better in-hand experience and make sure things like diopters and magnification were built-in, elegantly of course.
  
• Oh--this new M could be made in China, and even some lenses could be made there with Leica's guidance. "Designed in Wetzlar by Leica" could match Apple's whole thing... There's no doubt in my mind that once you streamline the M's interior mechanisms to match its simple exterior, that you could make it more cheaply and efficiently. Yes I know this borders on blasphemy, though I'm wondering when German engineering gave up on efficiency Anyway, there's more than one way to lower costs and make a photographer's camera. Leica could still make M9Ps, 0.50 Super-Noctis or camel-skin versions or white gold versions by hand in Germany, with the parts coming from China anyway
  

[Guest malland]

...Oh--this new M could be made in China, and even some lenses could be made there with Leica's guidance. "Designed in Wetzlar by Leica" could match Apple's whole thing...

Seems to me that this is the sine qua non if Leica wants to be anything but a bit player. And only the cash flow from this type of efficient manufacturing could create the much larger R&D funds needed for real innovation. And, yeah, it doesn't have to be China; it could be Thailand.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the photograph is good enough, it does matter what camera takes it. iPhones can do a remarkable job for what they are, and they are more likely to be at the scene of a photographic opportunity of the "Ship runs into bridge" type than an M9. If the iPhone picture is then sold, then the photographer is a professional, like it or not. To decry a picture because of the camera that made it is simply snobbery.

 

I think this is the only post in this thread that makes any sense (to me). For some reason "image quality" has become more important than the image itself and what it says to the viewer. That is wrong and is what will set the pros and artists apart from the fray - not the quality/type of camera used but the end result.

 

Example: David Alan Harvey of Magnum and Nat Geo fame (I would call him a pro) just made a book of his Rio photos. They were shot with an iPhone, a D700, a GF1 and an M9. It is a fantastic mix and the colors are all standardized throughout the book so it becomes about the feeling and emotion of a picture vs the corner to corner sharpness, blah, blah, etc etc.

 

For me the quest to try and recreate reality pixel by pixel has become tiresome. Sure, if I'm shooting product, fashion, etc that might be important, but for all else give me emotion and moments and meaning first.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} give me emotion and moments and meaning first.

 

But of course! But that doesn't mean that you'd only want things the quality of an iPhone. I love shooting with it; it's great and it's "with me" most of the time, so that's cool.

 

But chance, as they almost say, favours the prepared photographer, and some of that preparation is gear that makes it easier to produce great and consistent results Otherwise, you're relying on luck a lot of the time. That can be ok too, especially when it comes to art, but it's certainly not a standard for professional use.

 

Put it another way: just because [insert name of best golfer here] could beat most of us at golf with coke bottle tied to a stick, doesn't mean we shouldn't want to use a well made golf club Or that they would continue to use the stick

 

Not that there aren't diminishing returns, either, with equipment: which is another reason I'd urge Leica to get back to their actual M essentials, and stop messing about with ostrich fur or monochrome sensors or whatever else the collectors will buy.

 

The M should be small size with great ergonomics and give a first class, nearly immediate experience, with innovative and fabulous optics in camera and w/ lenses, a certain toughness, and a great, direct, simple experience.

 

I don't care where it's built. I care how it's built, and that the cost barrier to building it isn't ridiculously prohibitive for those who would use such a system professionally or as a learning aid.

 

In short, I'd like the future of the M to be as innovative as the past. Heck--they could re-open ElCan if our oil-based dollar wasn't so high

[Jeff S]

it should be more weather resistant. I don't know about submersable, or even sealed, but better.

 

Please. And just think of the money they could make on some new sealed lenses to match.

 

While we're at it, how about a quieter camera, too...in real M tradition...either a much quieter motor or an option to manually re-cock.

 

Jeff

[rramesh]

By the way the Hermes editions are the quietest and best protected. You even get a pair of white gloves to caress them with.

[Jamie Roberts]

Please. And just think of the money they could make on some new sealed lenses to match.

 

While we're at it, how about a quieter camera, too...in real M tradition...either a much quieter motor or an option to manually re-cock.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff--spot on! I missed "quieter" with my wish list. While the M9 is not too noisy by any means, it's still louder than my M6

[lars_bergquist]

I don't agree with this, actually, at all.

 

First, a smaller frame M-compatible system seems just silly to me, and while I appreciate the niceties of being able to focus a Leica 50 1.4 R Summilux on an EVF, let alone an M Noctilux, I don't want to crop it 50%--it's a case of "why use that lens?" syndrome...).

 

Seems? Why? Have you ever encountered a lens bayonet that has been too large? Well, neither have I. And I have never suggested that 'M compatible' equals 'M mandatory'. Of course a smaller system must have its own lenses – because they have to be AF, if for no other cause.

 

An M autofocus? No thanks.

 

Agreed.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Lars's smaller system isn't a good idea (though I hate using cropped sensors mostly); only that there is lots of room for a manual focus M to grow from the M9, and it could still be the "Leica format" for photographers, not collectors.

 

All sensors are 'cropped' compared to any larger sensor. So what? 35mm was 'cropped' in comparison to 120 roll film, and boy, we heard it! But I didn't hate it. When working with a good APS-C camera, I do not hate it because it is not 'full format'. As with 35mm, I simply try to get the most out of it.

 

If I was in charge of M9 + development, these would be my priorities for making it a working pro's dream:

 

Here follows a wish list that is pretty disparate. I can agree with some of the points – weather resistance, a better screen. But frankly, most of them reveal a certain lack of understanding of either technical or economic facts, or both, accompanied my much hand waving: Allah will provide for the faithful.

 

Especially the belief that Leica lens manufacture could be turned over to some outfit like Foxconn (notorious because its Chinese employees commit suicide) strikes me as rather too unworldly.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[pgk]

Leica could of course return to a more traditional concept next and produce a mechanical rangefinder camera with a full frame sensor - the MP-D perhaps - and totally surprise us all:eek:.

[lars_bergquist]

Leica could of course return to a more traditional concept next and produce a mechanical rangefinder camera with a full frame sensor - the MP-D perhaps - and totally surprise us all:eek:.

 

Do you by 'mechanical' mean a digital camera (which is of necessity fully electronic) but with a manually cocked shutter? I cannot see the sense of this. There is simply no advantage to it, except a few saved watt-seconds of battery power.

 

My twitching right thumb has finally come to rest. I need a thumb lever as much as I need a M with a hand-cranked generator.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[pgk]

Do you by 'mechanical' mean a digital camera (which is of necessity fully electronic) but with a manually cocked shutter? I cannot see the sense of this. There is simply no advantage to it, except a few saved watt-seconds of battery power.

 

My twitching right thumb has finally come to rest. I need a thumb lever as much as I need a M with a hand-cranked generator.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

Well there is the power saving element, but more the surprise;).

[Jeff S]

Motor noise is the issue for me, not power consumption. Having a quiet shutter, only to have a loud motor noise intrude after, reminds me of the question: "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

 

If not a manual re-cock, then surely a quieter motor is possible.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

They need to. The M line is running into diminishing returns. After adding a CMos with its inevitavble liveview and quite likely "Visoflex IV" type of accessory EVF to pacify the remaining R crowd, and the Monochrome as ultimate niche-within-niche camera there remains but one thing for an M11 - add autofocus capability to the rangefinder concept. Hardly an attractive prospect and effectively the end of the line. So Leica will need a new bread-and-butter camera concept in some years time.

 

Hi Jaap

I can't say how much I disagree with this. If you go have a look at mirror less camera forums, they are all clamouring for a full frame mirror less camera - which is precisely what you're describing here - Leica can be so far in front of the game. Whereas they will always be an 'also ran' with any smaller sensor camera.

 

My personal feeling is that the M line is absolutely secure - the M9 has sold many more than the M8, and there is no reason not to believe than an M10 as you describe it (especially with the video that Andreas Kaufmann was suggesting) would sell more again. And, as you suggest, add AF to an M11 and although you (and I and many other MF aficionados) might not be impressed - there's a whole world of people out there who would be.

 

Personally, I've tried shooting M lenses on a smaller sensor camera with live view, it's a fine substitute if you don't have an M9, but I wouldn't even bother again myself (R lenses are quite a different matter).

 

It seems to me that introducing an APS/c or APS/h camera with a new lens mount is a real no-hoper (please, not a competitor for the X1-pro!). There will always much cheaper options to use M lenses (assuming you can accept a cropped sensor).

 

I can, however, see the argument for producing a m4/3 camera - it has two real benefits:

 

1. There is already a large number of available lenses, so they would start to sell bodies right away.

 

2. There are a large number of bodies around, so the marketplace for their lenses would be instantly huge.

 

I understand they say they aren't going to do this - but I think it's a big mistake - I've spent a great deal of time with both m4/3,NEX with the new sensors in the OMD and the G3, there really isn't a significant IQ advantage with the APS/c sensor, but there is an obvious size advantage with respect to lenses.

[jaapv]

Umm.. Where did I mention a smaller sensor in that quote?:confused:There is nowhere to go from an AF enhanced M11. The top-end 135 class camera of Leica bread-and butter- of the future will be full frame - but the rangefinder will (very sadly) not be part of the concept. In essence you and I are saying the same.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

but the rangefinder will (very sadly) not be part of the concept.

Its lasted a long time already. I don't see that anything has fundamentally changed to make the actual rangefinder concept redundant even with digital sensors. It remains a niche product even today, albeit a very successful one within its niche.

[jaapv]

All technology has a natural lifespan, there will come a time that it is replaced, otherwise we would still be using flint axes. The rangefinder has had a pretty good run, a tribute to the soundness of the concept, but I fear the writing is on the wall. Let's hope Leica will have an opportunity to keep on building Ms much in the same way they are building film cameras, but their main concept will have to shift. When? Who knows? My guess is well within the decade.